• Donna K Parker, Shuijie Shen, Jiang Zheng, D Dunbar Ivy, Dave N Crotwell, Justin C Hotz, and Robert M DiBlasi.
• 1Department of Respiratory Care, Children's Hospital of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 2Seattle Children's Research Institute Center for Developmental Therapeutics, Seattle, WA. 3Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 4Department of Respiratory Care, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA. 5Departments of Anesthesia Critical Care Medicine and Respiratory Care, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
• Pediatr Crit Care Me. 2017 Jun 1; 18 (6): e253-e260.

ObjectivesTo determine the feasibility of delivering inhaled treprostinil during mechanical ventilation and spontaneous unassisted ventilation using the Tyvaso Inhalation System and the vibrating mesh nebulizer. We sought to compare differences in fine particle fraction, and absolute inhaled treprostinil mass delivered to neonatal, pediatric, and adult models affixed with a face mask, conventional, and high-frequency ventilation between Tyvaso Inhalation System and with different nebulizer locations between Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer.DesignFine particle fraction was first determined via impaction with both the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer. Next, a test lung configured with neonatal, pediatric, and adult mechanics and a filter to capture medication was attached to a realistic face model during spontaneous breathing or an endotracheal tube during conventional ventilation and high-frequency oscillator ventilator. Inhaled treprostinil was then nebulized with both the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer, and the filter was analyzed via high-performance liquid chromatography. Testing was done in triplicate. Independent two-sample t tests were used to compare mean fine particle fraction and inhaled mass between devices. Analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests were used to compare within device differences.SettingAcademic children's hospital aerosol research laboratory.Measurements And Main ResultsFine particle fraction was not different between the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer (0.78 ± 0.04 vs 0.77 ± 0.08, respectively; p = 0.79). The vibrating mesh nebulizer delivered the same or greater inhaled treprostinil than the Tyvaso Inhalation System in every simulated model and condition. When using the vibrating mesh nebulizer, delivery was highest when using high-frequency oscillator ventilator in the neonatal and pediatric models, and with the nebulizer in the distal position in the adult model.ConclusionsThe vibrating mesh nebulizer is a suitable alternative to the Tyvaso Inhalation System for inhaled treprostinil delivery. Fine particle fraction is similar between devices, and vibrating mesh nebulizer delivery meets or exceeds delivery of the Tyvaso Inhalation System. Delivery for infants and children during high-frequency oscillator ventilator with the vibrating mesh nebulizer may result in higher than expected dosages.

43 keywords...

hide…